The writer got mad when a goblin shoved Astarion off a cliff. It reminded me of when I had Karlach shove a goblin in lava, then a goblin ran up and shoved HER in the lava. I didnā€™t get mad; I took it as a learning moment: enemies can shove me back, so move away from the lava.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    11
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    DND 5e is a horrible system. Bg3 would be better if it was built on something else. The reasons they focus on in this article arenā€™t really the reasons why.

    • the adventuring day is trash. Itā€™s especially bad when thereā€™s no human dm to be like ā€œno you JUST had a long rest you canā€™t have anotherā€. Though apparently most tables do one fight per long rest on average anyway, which is insane. Thatā€™s not how the game is balanced! Bg3 kind of sort of limits you by making you get supplies, but that doesnā€™t really make a big impact. Also thereā€™s good berries.

    • thereā€™s very little room for mechanical customization and optimization. You pick a subclass, skills to be slightly better at, and some stats that matter but not a whole lot. Pretty much every early character is going to do their main thing at +5. But that modifier is dwarfed but the comparably huge 1d20 random factor.

    I didnā€™t even notice I wasnā€™t proficient in my weapon on a new game the other day for like an hour. I lost the +2 Prof bonus but the +1 magic bonus mostly made up for that. And since the random factor of 1d20 is so big in comparison, it doesnā€™t make a big difference.

    But character mechanics are very shallow, especially at low level. Compare pillars of eternity 2 where there are many more classes, class combinations, and the way weapons and armor work is actually interesting.

    • dndā€™s armor system is kind of stupid. This is a dead horse. But like come on ac as avoidance, no concept of damage reduction (outside of one feat and rare sources of 50% reduction).

    • no degree of success or failure. Rolling a 30 vs a target of 5 is the same as rolling 5. A human dm will probably be better here, and they could have programmed it for some of the skill checks. But for combat thatā€™s not how DND works.

    • the assumed miss rate is pretty high. Whole turns can go by where everyone just misses. This is better at 5th level where you have two attacks, but low level can become a slog.

    • they didnā€™t implement take 10 (or 20) so the game has a lot of boring rolls that donā€™t really mean anything. Mostly picking locks and searching. Itā€™s very save scummy, especially when failure is just a dead end.

    • personally I vastly prefer a low random factor. I liked how new Vegas skill checks were either you had it or you didnā€™t. No save scumming. No ā€œwhy did my barbarian roll so high on arcana but my wizard at +10 rolled so poorlyā€

    • 1d20+stuff gives flat probability, which I dislike. Every outcome on the die is equally likely. That doesnā€™t feel good to me.

    I could go on but itā€™s late. 5e kind of sucks. Article didnā€™t nail why.

    • 50gp@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      magic feels really bad in this system early on when all they canreally do is spam cantrip after missing all their spells

      plus healing spells feel very weak compared to potions

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Thereā€™s also the fact that generally DND magic has every spell as a bespoke effect. Thereā€™s not an underlying system you can reason about. Youā€™re not really expected to make your own spells. You donā€™t really tweak the ones you get very much. What can you do with a 4th level slot vs 5th? You can kind of infer from the examples, and maybe thereā€™s details in the DMG somewhere , but itā€™s not foregrounded.

        They also are very, well, mechanical rather than magical. You declare youā€™re casting, check off the spell slot, and the spell just happens. Some people might prefer this taste, but it makes it feel very mundane and bland to me . Compare like Mage (awakening, 2e) where youā€™re always looking for ways to stretch how far your spells can go, balancing risk, and looking for thematic boosts.

        • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          The ā€œlooking for ways to stretch how far your spells can goā€ bit from Mage always struck me as ā€œplaying mother-may-I with the Storyteller.ā€ I really prefer it as a player when my abilities do what they say they do, and as a DM when my playersā€™ abilities donā€™t require me to make too many judgment calls, which can lead to players who are more persuasive IRL getting their way more often than players who arenā€™t.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            I think I meant more about ā€œI can take a -6 on the roll to affect all the guys and risk it not workingā€ or ā€œIā€™ll risk three dice on paradoxā€ for stretching your spells rather than ā€œI can totally cure cancer with life 2, right??ā€

            DND doesnā€™t really have much tactical depth for the spells. They do what they say and always work (unless saved against). You never get the ā€œI donā€™t know if I have another spell on me!ā€ trope.

            What you meant I think shows up in DND too. Players being like ā€œcan I use mage hand to swing a sword?ā€ or ā€œcan I use create water to drown him?ā€ Thatā€™s more an annoying player problem, but I see what you mean about some systems enable it more than others.

            Youā€™d probably really dislike Fate, then, where itā€™s almost entirely based on what the table agrees makes sense for your free form written character traits.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      14
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      5e is fine. Itā€™s an overcorrection from the disaster of 4e. 3.5 was really good but it did suffer from classic slow combat and overload of bonuses/penalties at mid-high level. But if you donā€™t like 5e, go play something else. Maybe Pathfinder.

      But if you just hate d&d in general but like rpgs in general, then not have I got some bad news for you. Every single RPG in existence owes itā€™s creation to d&d. All of them. Show a little fucking respect.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        But if you donā€™t like 5e, go play something else. Maybe Pathfinder.

        ā€œWeā€™ve got both kinds of music here. Country and westernā€

        My dude if you donā€™t like DND you probably wonā€™t like its brother Pathfinder. There are many, many, rpgs out there that arenā€™t a close relative. Pbta is huge. Fate is old but good. Gurps has been around forever. WoD/CofD is dear to me.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Show a little fucking respect.

        Lol to WOTC? Fat fucking chance. This is such a bad take.

      • UnverifiedAPK@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Whatā€™s crazy is the more I learn about 3.5, the more it seems perfect for a CRPG where the game is keeping track of everything for you and does the calculations in a split second.

      • Seeker of Carcosa@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Every single RPG in existence owes itā€™s creation to d&d. All of them.

        This is so easily disproven that Iā€™m wondering whether this is a troll comment. There are many well known RPGs that were developed independently and contemporary to D&D, which themselves have many derivatives. GDW published Traveller in 1977. Chaosium published Runequest in 1978 and Call of Cthulhu in 1981. Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone have been writing Fighting Fantasy books since 1982.

        D&D itself is based partially on Dave Arnesonā€™s Blackmoor game, which heā€™d been designing since 1971.